Members Present: |
Ingrid Carls, Ed Hand, Bob Broder, Helen Robertson Planner: Ethan Parsons |
Also Present: |
Katherine Babson, Suzi Newman, Sarah Norwood, Alex Pitkin, Frank DeMasi, Paul Twitchell, Eunice Twitchell, Bob Sechrest, Paul Esposito, Vicki Scheuffler, Kerri Kenny, Cynthia Westerman |
Mr. Broder brought the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Mr. Dan Gordon, Landscape Architect, was present in order to provide an opinion on the High School Planting Plan.
1. |
7:30 pm |
TD Bank |
999 Worcester St. |
Standing, 2 Wall |
DRB 26-09, 27-09, 28-09 |
Mr. Alberto Jarquin of Bohler Engineering returned to the Board with a revised application for signs at TD Bank’s 999 Worcester St. location. Mr. Jarquin presented a proposed standing sign (EO1), wall sign (EO2), window sign displaying the hours of operation (EO3), wall sign displaying the direction of the entrance (EO5), all to read “TD Bank”, and a wall sign (NO2) to be hung inside the window, reading “Open 7 Days”.
The application included two signs, EO3 and EO5, which were not considered as contributing to the total number of proposed signs and they were not considered to be under review by the Design Review Board. The Design Review Board has no objections to the proposed EO3 and EO5 signs because these will display the hours of operation and directions to the entrance and both will be less than one sq. ft.
The Design Review Board approved of all the signage proposed in the application submitted 5/19/09. However, the signage as presented exceeds the maximum number of signs allowed by right, which on this property is two signs. The application would require a special permit for exceeding the maximum number of signs allowed by right if they choose to pursue construction of the additional sign. The DRB recommends the ZBA approve of the proposal if the applicant chooses to pursue the third sign and exceed the maximum number allowed by right.
The Design Review Board has no objections to the “Open 7 Days” sign, whether internally illuminated or non-illuminated; however, if the sign is to ultimately be internally illuminated the applicant would have to obtain a special permit. If this is the case, the DRB recommends the ZBA approve of the internally illuminated wall sign reading “Open 7 Days”.
The Board, having established the proposed signs (assuming the “Open 7 Days” sign is not internally illuminated and there are two, not three signs) meet the by right requirements of the Sign Bylaw and the Design Review Guidelines, moved, seconded and voted unanimously to:
“Recommend the Building Inspector approve the proposed signage to be located at 999 Worcester Street to read “TD Bank” and “Open 7 Days” as presented in the application.”
The Board, having established the proposed “Open 7 Days” sign (assuming it is to be internally illuminated) meets the Design Review Guidelines, moved, seconded and voted unanimously to:
“Recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed wall sign (NO2) to be located at 999 Worcester Street to read “Open 7 Days”, if the applicant chooses to pursue a special permit for internally illuminating this sign.”
The Board, having established the proposed signage, although exceeding the maximum number allowed by right (assuming the applicant pursues a third sign), meets the Design Review Guidelines, moved, seconded and voted unanimously to:
“Recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed signage to be located at 999 Worcester Street, if the applicant chooses to pursue a third sign.”
2. |
7:40 pm |
TD Bank |
380 Washington St. |
3 Wall |
DRB 29-09, 30-09, 31-09 |
Mr. Alberto Jarquin returned to the Board with a revised application for signs at TD Bank’s 380 Washington Street location. Mr. Jarquin presented a proposed wall sign (EO1), wall sign (EO2), window sign (EO3) to display the hours of operation, window sign (NO1) to display the ATM location, and a wall sign (NO3). Signs EO1 and EO2 would read “TD Bank”. Sign NO3 would read “Open 7 Days”.
The application included a sign, EO3, to display the hours of operation, which was not considered to count toward the number of signs allowed by right. Sign EO3 would be less than one sq. ft. In addition, the DRB did not consider the NO1 sign, to display the location of the ATM, to count toward the total number of signs allowed by right. TD Bank’s 380 Washington St. location has two entrances, therefore a third sign is allowed by right.
The Design Review Board approved of all the signage proposed in the revised application submitted 5/19/09. The Design Review Board has no objections to the “Open 7 Days” sign, whether internally illuminated or non-illuminated; however, if the sign is to ultimately be internally illuminated the applicant would have to obtain a special permit. If this is the case, the DRB recommends the ZBA approve of the internally illuminated wall sign reading “Open 7 Days”.
The Board, having established the proposed wall signs (assuming the “Open 7 Days” sign is not internally illuminated) meet the by right requirements of the Sign Bylaw and the Design Review Guidelines, moved, seconded and voted unanimously to:
“Recommend the Building Inspector approve the proposed wall signs to be located at 380 Washington Street to read “TD Bank” and “Open 7 Days” as presented.”
The Board, having established the proposed “Open 7 Days” sign (assuming it is to be internally illuminated) meets the Design Review Guidelines, moved, seconded and voted unanimously to:
“Recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed wall sign (NO3) to be located at 380 Washington Street to read “Open 7 Days”, if the applicant chooses to pursue a special permit for internally illuminating this sign.”
3. |
7:50 pm |
Wellesley High School |
50 Rice St. |
Major Construction |
16-08M |
Sarah Norwood of the PBC, Katherine Babson of the SBC, Suzi Newman of the SC, and Alex Pitkin of SMMA returned to conclude the presentation and review of the High School by the DRB.
The DRB stated that they would like to see and or hear an overview of the entire project to be sure that they were reviewing the complete application. Ms. Ingrid began the discussion by reminding those present that at the previous meeting the final location of the cupola had yet to be determined. Mr. Pitkin explained that the ultimate cupola location was still unknown. Mr. Broder stated that he was concerned the cupola would lose its architectural significance if it were set on the ground. Ms. Robertson and Mr. Hand proposed placing the cupola in a different location. The DRB stated that they would like to see the final placement of the cupola once its location is determined.
Ms. Carls cited some earlier concern about the blank wall near the entrance. Mr. Pitkin stated that this wall would serve as a sign bay. Mr. Hand asked whether there would be a wall(s) in addition to the plantings adjacent to Seaver St. in order to provide additional screening. Mr. Pitkin stated that these walls would be removed and the majority of the screening would be accomplished through vegetation. Ms. Robertson asked for the number of students that might enter or exit through the cafeteria entrance at one time. Mr. Pitkin explained that approximately two buses would stack up at one time and unload approximately 55 students each. The doors and space would accommodate this number safely.
The Board asked to see a detailed elevation drawing of the exterior of the cafeteria area. The Board reviewed the A2.00 sheet submitted as part of the Site Plan Review application. Mr. Pitkin explained the architectural details of this area. The Board had no objections. Ms. Carls asked about, and Mr. Pitkin explained, that several materials from the existing building would be inventoried and potentially reused on the new building, such as bricks and vegetation.
Mr. Sechrest, a citizen advocating for the preservation of the historic elements of the existing high school and primarily the cupola, expressed his interest in preserving the cupola, including the lead portion of the base, on top of the building. Mr. Broder, Ms. Carls and Ms. Robertson felt the new school would be too contemporary for the cupola to be placed on top. Mr. Hand felt that it might be appropriately placed on top of another section of the school roof, such as near the green roof. Mr. Sechrest stated that he is not opposed to mixing architectural styles and that the cupola is an iconic symbol. Martin Padley of the Wellesley Historical Society also expressed interest in the iconic role of the tower and cupola in the community but felt that without a drawing of its proposed location he
questioned how the Board could make a recommendation. The Board agreed, stating that without seeing a design proposal they would not be able to make a recommendation on the placement of the cupola on the school. The DRB felt that they should make their recommendation based on the location as proposed, which showed the tower at the corner of the parking area and Rice St. Ms. Carls felt that the location of the cupola should have been included in the design from the beginning.
The Design Review Board establishes that they reviewed a complete application for a Project of Significant Impact and Site Plan Review. The Design Review Board, having found that the application for a Project of Significant Impact and Site Plan Review (Major Construction Project) meets the following design criteria according to Section XXII, C: (1) preservation and enhancement of landscaping; (2) relation of buildings to environment; and (3) open space criteria; but due to the unknown ultimate placement and preservation of the cupola, holds that the (5) heritage design criteria is not yet met, moved, seconded, and voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the application as presented. A fourth criterion, signs and advertising devices, is not applicable. The Board requests the applicant consult with the
Board once the ultimate cupola location and preservation details are determined. The Board welcomes the opportunity to make a recommendation on the heritage design criterion to any Town board if asked to do so, in addition to making a recommendation to the applicant.
4. |
9:00 pm |
Wellesley Housing Authority |
50 Linden St. |
Minor Construction |
05-09M |
Margaret Plansky, Director of the Wellesley Housing Authority, Bradley Boyd, Vice-Chairman of the Wellesley Housing Authority, John Winslow, project architect, and Rich Westcott, the project engineer, came before the Board to continue the presentation and review of the proposed improvements at 50 Linden St.
Mr. Boyd explained the financial opportunities and constraints facing the Housing Authority. He explained that there are many proposed improvements but none would drastically change the exterior of the buildings on the property. Those exterior improvements subject to review are the enclosure of four windows on the sides of each building, the reconstruction of the entry porches in the center of each building and the addition of a direct entry into the basement of one of the buildings.
The Design Review Board asked Ms. Plansky and Mr. Boyd about the demographics of the residents, noting that the site and any improvements might lend itself better to certain age cohorts rather than others. The DRB asked whether the buildings could be modified to allow for more flexible arrangements. Ms. Plansky, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Winslow reinforced the difficulty of altering the spaces due to the state, rather than local control over programming and financing.
Mr. Winslow provided photographs of the ledge area in the rear of the property, where the Board had suggested relocating a parking space. The ledge would be a significant hurdle to overcome because of the cost of removing it and the removal might jeopardize the structural stability of the buildings. Ms. Plansky stated that the Housing Authority would reconfigure and relocate the trash/recycling receptacles at the suggestion of the Board made during the previous meeting. There was a discussion of the seating/recreational area issue that the Board raised during the previous meeting. Mr. Winslow explained that the site was very small and had a fairly steep slope, which would make it hard to improve. Ms. Plansky stated that several of the residents already utilize the space for passive recreation
and that it was not the Housing Authority’s intention to create programmed space. Mr. Winslow stated that the Housing Authority would be considering different environmentally friendly and visually pleasing driveway alternatives at a later date but were constrained by the cost of improvements and the slope of the driveway. Ms. Plansky stated that the Housing Authority would be very cognizant of the courtyard area. The Design Review Board encouraged the Housing Authority to consider their recommendations made during the two meetings.
The Board, after a brief discussion, established the proposed minor construction project meets the Design Review Guidelines and moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:
“Recommend the Building Inspector approve the proposed construction project proposed for the Wellesley Housing Authority’s 50 Linden St. location.”
5. |
9:50 pm |
Summer Schedule |
The Board discussed the summer meeting schedule and decided to hold meetings June 10, June 24 and August 12.
The Board adjourned at 10:00 pm.
Ethan Parsons
Planner
Minutes Approved: 6/10/09
| 
